Judicial accountability is defined as the set of mechanisms aimed at making judges and courts personally or institutionally responsible for behaviours and decisions contrary to constitutional or legal standards. To ensure judicial accountability, the Indian Constitution provides Article 124 and 217 (related to removal of judges), Article 235 (control of High Courts over the subordinate judiciary), Article 137 (curative petition), etc. and the Supreme Court has given itself guidelines for general behaviour of judges under the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life in 1997.

However, multiple challenges exist in ensuring the judicial accountability in India:

• Process of Impeachment: The impeachment is a long and complex process and can be used only in cases of proven misconduct or incompetence.
• Lack of transparency: Judiciary has virtually kept itself out of the ambit of RTI Act, thus restricting access to information, which further hinders the process of holding judges accountable.
• Contempt of Court: Under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, contempt of court was provided as a way to protect the independence of the court but it is alleged that the courts have exploited this mechanism as a means of protecting itself from criticism.
• Judges appointing Judges: The appointment of judges through the collegium system is seen as a closed-door affair, leaning towards secrecy with lack of accountability and transparency.

Considering these challenges, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 (JSA Bill) attempted to lay down certain judicial standards, introducing accountability mechanisms and establishing less cumbersome processes for the removal of judges across India. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2010, and passed by it in 2012 after it had been put through a Standing Committee scrutiny. But it could not be taken up in the Rajya Sabha as Parliament was adjourned.

In light of these circumstances, there is a need to enact a new law for ensuring judicial accountability:

• To set standards: The law can provide some broad judicial standards and establish processes for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Court.
• To improve transparency and credibility: To prevent corrupt practices, the law may provide for strict mandates against having a close relation with the individual members of bar, and preventing any bias in judicial work.
• Legal mechanism: The law may call upon judges to follow certain standards of conduct and any violation of these standards could lead to complaints to a proposed National Judicial Standards Oversight Committee.
• Broaden the scope of complainant: The law may enable any person (not only MPs as governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968) to make a complaint against judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to the proposed Oversight Committee.

Though the law on judicial accountability will be a step to restore some of the fundamental values of integrity and transparency in the judicial architecture, it is necessary to strike a balance between independence of judiciary and judicial accountability.